The majority opinion, penned by Judge Linn, with Judge Clevenger alongside -

For a controller, did a claimed "system" mean a single control device? The CAFC decides a broad interpretation is warranted in light of a vague specification.

The district court construed the term “controller” to mean “a single control system [that] regulates the entire process.” In applying this construction, the district court then held that “multiple controllers . . . coordinated by a master computer” could not constitute a single control system. In effect, the district court’s application treated the “single control system” as referring to a single control device. (emphasis added). AutoMed argues that the district court erred by limiting “controller” to a single control device.

We agree with the district court’s initial construction, with the clarification that the “controller” need not be limited to a single device, as applied by the district court and asserted by Microfil. We see no basis in the intrinsic record to warrant reading the term “controller” to be limited to a single device or to any particular hardware or software. The specifications of the ’671 and ’927 patents support a broad interpretation of “controller.” The specifications disclose at least two structures that perform control functions: a “controller 180,” which apparently controls only the rate of vibration; and a “control system 80,” which seems to control many aspects of the entire process. Compare, e.g., ’927 patent col.8 ll.51-59, with id. col.11 ll.43-46.

Inscrutably, the CAFC ignores indefiniteness and lack of enablement embodied in the "controller" claim term in light of the specification.

Unfortunately, the specifications fall short of clarity in outlining the exact functions and details of the control system software and hardware. Even though the relationship between these structures is not entirely clear from the written description, what is unmistakable is that no single device is disclosed which performs or is capable of performing all of the functions recited in claim 1 of the ‘927 patent, namely, to receive a patient’s prescription information and to control the entire apparatus, including the vibratory dispenser, the container transport assembly, and the vial transport assembly. See ’927 patent claim 1. To the contrary, the patents describe only in general terms the control of several distinct systems and processes. E.g., ’927 patent col.8 ll.1-2 (drive unit vibration); id. col.10, ll.58-62 (vial transport); id. col.11, ll.47-63 (patient entry process). With all due respect to the view expressed in the dissent, a construction of the term “controller” to be “a single module or specific device which operates automatically to regulate a controlled variable or system,” as argued by Microfil, would fly in the face of the specification and would engraft onto the claims an unwarranted limitation. See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1322-23 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (cautioning that dictionary definitions cannot be used to “contradict any definition found in or ascertained by a reading of the patent documents” (quoting Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1584 n.6 (Fed. Cir. 1996))). Without a clear indication from the patentee that a single device must control these varied functions, it is improper to limit the term “controller” to a single device rather than a single system. Accordingly, while we affirm the district court’s initial construction of “controller” to mean a “single control system that regulates the entire process,” we clarify that the controller need not be limited to a single device, nor to any particular hardware or software.

Remanded for reconsideration of non-infringement in light of the broader claim construction.

Judge Mayer dissents with a direct reading of the claim term -

I would affirm the trial court’s grant of summary judgment of noninfringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,449,927 (“’927 patent”). The ’927 patent requires a single controller to receive a patient’s prescription information and control the entire apparatus, including the vibratory dispenser, the container transport assembly, and the vial transport assembly. See ’927 patent claim 1. Allowing multiple controllers to perform these functions under the guise of a single control unit or system disregards the claim requirement that a single “controller” be used. Because the accused devices do not have a single controller that performs the required functions, and AutoMed Technologies, Inc. did not pursue a doctrine of equivalents argument before the trial court, Microfil, LLC does not infringe the ’927 patent.